And why the 'lockfs' call you ask? This ensures that all data is flushed to
disk - and measuring how long it takes to do something that doesn't necessarily
get flushed is just not legit in this case. Persistent data is good.

This is all interesting, but what about using
some REAL storage rather than a wimpy single
SCSI drive? Also, some real benchmarks would
be good as well.
Maybe try a 30TB SE-6920 or a Flex380, running
a benchmark through the ZFS filesystem like perhaps the SPC-1 benchmark? http://www.storageperformance.org/
Then, compare ZFS to UFS, VxFS and QFS, now that would be a real comparison!

Yes, real storage would be nice - but let me mention my intent
with this entry was not to publish numbers, but to show how
to grab some very very simple numbers for filesystem performance - to encourage people to try ZFS out.

We're still tweaking the performance of ZFS and real numbers
will come out soon.